Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

Arab Students Respond to Obama

By The New York Times June 4, 2009 8:53 amJune 4, 2009 8:53 am

Updated | 2:33 p.m. President Obama arrived in Egypt Thursday aiming to repair America’s relationship with the Muslim world through a carefully planned address in Cairo. The New York Times asked students in Cairo, Alexandria and Amman, Jordan, to share their thoughts on the president’s speech. Six students sent us their impressions, and we’ve posted them below. The Baghdad Bureau blog has posted reactions from Iraqis here. The Lede also gathered some dissenting views from the Arab blogosphere here.

The speech that President Barack Obama gave at Cairo University was very interesting and refreshing. It was definitely a big break from the tone and style that President Bush employed in addressing the Arab world. The speech was balanced and not aggressive as President Obama declared that his first and foremost interest is to serve and protect his people but at the same time he underlined world peace and cooperation. It is great to see an American president advocating world diplomacy and partnership instead of reinforcing the image of America as an overpowering superpower who everybody should submit to.

As the speech addressed many issues ranging from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Palestinian-Israeli issue and diplomacy in the Middle East to education and women’s rights, it was very general but it I find it a jump start and sent the right signals to the Arab world. It touched on many important issues in the Arab world that have always had big question marks on them such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the American invasion of Iraq. Obama promised change and acknowledged the fact that many people in the Middle East view America with fear and mistrust and this acknowledgment establishes understanding. But what was surprising to me is that despite the fact that President Obama continued to make references to American and Israeli history, he overlooked the fact that Palestine does have a history which includes decades of Israeli occupation and terror. A two-state solution seems realistic and reasonable but I believe that saying Israel has “legitimate aspirations” isn’t really accurate.

President Barack Obama, carrying the “goodwill of the American people,” greeted the Egyptian people in Cairo University’s conference hall with “Al Salamu Alaykom.” He did not thank the Egyptian president for his hospitality, he did not address him directly, but he directed his speech towards the people, towards the Arab world, towards the Muslim world.

President Obama’s speech had been highly anticipated by many in Egypt and all over the world, and the speech certainly does not disappoint those who took the time to listen. With an undeniable tone of optimism and positivity, President Obama managed to discuss a lot of the issues that are valid and true for the “tension” that exists between the western and the Arab world.

I like his positivity — the way he addressed the pros of Islam instead of the cons was a great and very logical way to start off. The way Islam is portrayed in the media right now is very one-sided and President Obama managed to acknowledge the distinction between extremism and Islam.

Now, this is very important and is something that was not touched upon by the Bush administration. Ever since 9/11 Islam has been portrayed in a very negative light, as the religion of terrorism, and no one had managed to change or at least begin to work on changing that view, until today.

What’s more was his quoting the Koran in the beginning, middle, and end of his speech. It’s obvious that the president is more than just an eloquent speaker, but a careful and thoughtful leader.

The president did touch upon the important issues in Arab-U.S relations; I think that the president’s most important words were on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He made it clear that tragedy is not contained in one place, but what happens in one country affects the entire world, and naturally the situation in Palestine/Israel contributes.

As an Egyptian, I am, location-wise, really close to the conflict, and as a human being, I see that Israeli actions are a violation of the sovereignty of another people and another state. However, I agree with the U.S president, there must be compromise and there must be sacrifice, as much as I would like to see Palestinians living freely within their own land, it does seem that a two-state solution is the best option, but both sides must be willing to compromise in order to achieve peace.

While the idea of peace between the two nations is a great idea, the president is not the first nor is he going to be the last person to speak of this. However, actions are Obama’s backup because he is not only saying that we should push for peace, but he himself is pushing for peace.

It was a great speech, it was a great gesture, and I think that Egyptians will be ready to welcome President Obama again in the future. Nevertheless, I do have one reservation; President Obama discussed democracy, freedom of speech, a government that is for the people and by the people, yet, he did not directly address any of the issues to Egyptian society. He didn’t discuss the instability of relationship between the government and the people of Egypt or the fact that we have had the same president for the past 28 years.

I understand that he couldn’t portray his host country’s government in a negative light, but it’s no secret that Egypt is very much authoritarian and not democratic.

But the speech gave me hope that change can happen, especially by collaboration and by seeing common ground and interest. Even if it is a slow process, it is not impossible, even change here in Egypt.

Samura Atallah

I had higher expectations for the speech — not to say it wasn’t appeasing or significantly constructive in U.S.-Muslim relations discourse. I was hoping President Obama would offer more concrete solutions, rather than rhetorical statements, because that was what the average citizen in the region was waiting for.

I respect how Obama drew a fine distinction between the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war; after all, it was the Iraq war that solidified Arab sentiments against U.S foreign policy.

I understand why Obama made such a stance on the spread of democracy in the Muslim world; at the end of the day, by international relations’ norms, each state is sovereign and no state has any right, whatsoever, to interfere in other states’ domestic policies. But I think it would have been wiser if President Obama put forth concrete resolutions on how he will support the civil society in Egypt and the Muslim world in general that would solidify the prospects for democracy.

This would be parallel to the funding that the U.S would grant to Afghanistan to rebuild its social institutions. The war did destroy such foundations, and now Obama has proposed and financially supported their reconstruction. If Obama extended such policy to Egypt to support its civil institutions, it would, to a certain degree, ease the fact that the Bush administration had been strongly supporting tyranny and oppression in Egypt. In effect, this would soothe the agony that an average Egyptian feels in regards to the democratic U.S supporting the military dictatorship of [President Hosni] Mubarak’s regime. If Obama had addressed how he would support social institutions and nongovernmental organizations in Egypt — for example, to supply them with the essential tools to make democracy possible — then he would have appeased those who are diligently working towards establishing democracy but have been disappointed by the U.S support of Mubarak.

Obama’s position on the Israeli-Arab conflict was moderate and tailored to both sides; a child, whether Palestinian or Israeli, has every right to a decent life. The two-state solution and pushing to stop the ongoing settlements was a substantial point, one that is yet novel to Palestinians in regards to recent U.S. foreign policy. I think this strongly illustrates the likelihood of peacemaking.

Obama’s stance on free will was impressive; it’s not what one chooses but the ability to choose what one pleases that matters. And by making the veil example, he proved that there is no “right” or “wrong” to the choices that one makes as long as they are one’s own. I also think by doing so he made a clear distinction between France’s and Turkey’s approaches to what the veil means and that of the U.S; after all, the U.S was built on the freedom of choice and what one wears is simply a choice. Furthermore, tying choices to universal human rights, namely education, made the impression that with freedom lies responsibility, and that I greatly respect.

I like the fact that Obama dedicated a significant chunk to addressing women and their rights; after all, feminism though diverse in its discourse, exists everywhere, whether in this part of the world or abroad.

The reference to Koran Islamic history all [through] the speech will make citizens realize that the new administration is more well-informed on this part of the world than the previous [one], and with better knowledge comes more significant change.

Tarek Hefni

Tarek Hefni, 20, is a student of computer science at Cairo University from Giza, Egypt. He watched President Obama’s speech in person at the University.

Obama’s speech shows how intelligent and what a good speaker he is. He reached out to his audience through referencing verses from the Koran on different occasions and from the Bible once.

He made his speech relevant to the audience by always going back to Islam and differentiate between Islam as a religion and violent extremists as individuals.

Obama’s speech gave some promises to the audience that they were really moved by and they really hope become reality, such as the closing down of Guantanamo and the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq by 2012.

I did not feel very comfortable regarding the two state solution and regarding treating the Holocaust as a fact. It is still a debatable issue and should not be taken as granted.

He was very honest regarding the different issues he talked about. It was surprising that he made it clear that the U.S. is interested in Israel as an ally. This [made for] some kind of trust in what he is saying.

Another point I wasn’t comfortable with was the nuclear arms issue. Although he was clear that he wants to disarm Iran, he didn’t give a solution to disarm other countries, especially Israel. Touching on that point was quite necessary to show how far the U.S. is willing to go.

The most interesting point is that the speech was not given to political figures, though many of the attendees were political figures. However, it was more focused on university students. This is a unique step to take! Addressing the people of Egypt rather than the political power is a unique step. It is apparent that the U.S. needs this now the most — as the image of the U.S. has become so bad in Egypt and in the Middle East. Obama, with his excellent public-speaking skills, was the best one to improve [that] image and promise a better future.

Lede Blog Editor’s NoteWe asked Tarek to clarify his objection to President Obama’s statement that the Holocaust is a fact in his speech today in Cairo. Here is what he told us:

I admit a genocide has taken place! That’s a fact. However, the numbers are really doubtful. I also don’t see any relevance between people being killed by other nation and building a homeland in a different land. Again the genocide did take place. I just doubt the numbers.

Kholoud Khalifa

Kholoud Khalifa, 22, who majored in journalism at the American University in Cairo and describes herself as an “Egyptian-Austrian Muslim,” watched the speech in Mohandesien, Egypt.

Obama delivered a great speech, full of optimism and courage. Combined with his unique gift to move audiences, this will undoubtedly be a historical moment we all can look back on.

Obama is clever to open is speech with honesty. He says he will speak of the truth rather than spit out the same old political rhetoric practiced by those before him. But what was unexpected, or rather tactful, was elaborating on the centuries of Islamic civilization, their contribution to the world as we know it, and their importance in the world today. That kept us in our chairs, “it sounds promising,” I thought; so let’s hear the rest.

As a devout Muslim, a person who has been stereotyped over and over again by the media, it was unexpected to hear Obama recite verses from the Koran. Here he is addressing the Muslim world with our own words. Cheers and loud applause followed the verses — after all, it’s what we can relate to. He came across to us as a man with great intellect and knowledge of the other, when all he did was select phrases that were really only supporting his own scheme.

Now I’m not saying he is bad or evil, because that is far from the truth. But let’s not deny that his primary goal is to serve U.S. and Israeli interest and we only come in second. He said it himself “a speech won’t eradicate years of mistrust.”

I was troubled by his words regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict and those on democracy. The others were okay, they were expected — violent extremism in all of its forms didn’t really hit a nerve. Iran’s nuclear controversy is just filling white space, but claiming the Holocaust justifies a Jewish homeland and then saying it’s wrong too, what was it? Oh, uttering the same about Jews because it revokes past emotions is atrocious. For 60 years the Palestinians have been displaced, killed and terrorized and it’s disparaging to think of it as a tragic event rather than a genocide. To me, that thought confirms only one thing — his views of Palestinians are no different to those of Zionists.

Furthermore, speaking of democracy and America’s stance on human rights, Obama manages to include all countries except the one we live in. Hasn’t he been notified that Egypt hides behind the label democracy but is in fact a dictatorship? If it’s obvious to a blind man then why didn’t he address this concern to us? And if he did, then he most certainly did it in a very discreet manner. I suppose he’d rather leave a population of 80 million to suffer rather than injure his ties with Egypt. Lets see what happens when things turn against America like it did with Saddam Hussein, will Mubarak then be called a foe as opposed to a strong leader?

Riham El Houshi

Riham El Houshi, 20, seated on the floor, watched the speech at a friend’s house in Heliopolis.

I was skeptical, I was looking for holes, I was ready with fingers on my keyboard to note any mistake (and there were many), but ultimately, President Barack Obama’s speech appealed to me. He struck all the right chords, using all the right verses of the Qur’an and being brutally honest about the lack of democracy in the very country where he was standing and the abuse of the Palestinian issue by leaders to avoid the democracy issue.
Those around me were not so convinced. “I expected more,” said one of my friends, curled up on the sofa beside me. “You can’t justify the invasion of Afghanistan and spreading chaos and bloodshed for all these years, no matter how ‘traumatic’ 9/11 was.”
She added, rightly, that Egypt and Algeria had been the targets of terrorists many times, (Egypt in particular is home to the Muslim Brotherhood, who preaches hatred against America), but no one would tolerate an invasion of these lands. It is not, as the president said himself, America’s job to save us.
But, and this is assuming for a minute the Bush administration’s motives for the invasion were what Obama said they were, knowing that al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan is reason enough to go there and uproot them.
No, that’s not where the contradiction lies. Obama said it was a fact that 3,000 people had died on 9/11. It is also a fact that the remnants of the Afghan jihad who later became al-Qaeda were formerly supported by the U.S in the fight against the former Soviet Union, and became radicalized after America’s Arab allies denied them return to their homelands.
Obama’s hurried research about Islam, though a much appreciated gesture by all audiences was off in some places; he pronounced the veil “hajib” instead of “hijab” and failed to come anywhere near the correct pronunciation of Al-Azhar, the 2,000-year-old religious school he referenced so many times.
All these were bland bumps in his speech. Where Obama really lost us is Palestine. He didn’t beat around the bush, at least, and made it clear right away that the American bond with Israel was unbreakable.
But he has clearly failed to understand that the problem Muslims have is not seeing both sides of the conflict, but seeing the conflict in historical context. I can safely say that Muslims do not and never will feel responsible for the Holocaust, and do not think it justifies setting up a Jewish state upon Palestinian lands. Lands, which, have shrunk over the decades as settlements have continued to rise and more and more territory has been annexed.
And despite the beauty of the words he used about Jerusalem, it was heavily symbolic talk about a messy issue. Palestinians and Israeli may agree on everything, but they will never relinquish their rights to Jerusalem as the capital of their respective nations.
I called my uncle, an avid supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood who had watched the speech on al-Jazeera, to get his take. He was angered by the general and what he thought was unfair treatment of the Palestinian issue. “Hamas should recognize Israel, shouldn’t Israel recognize Hamas? And this Israeli state, what are its borders, and where will the displaced Palestinians go?”
Even he agreed, though, that the speech would win over the Muslim world.
(Riham writes more on her blog.)

Ms. Al-Shami notes that, “what was surprising to me is that despite the fact that President Obama continued to make references to American and Israeli history, he overlooked the fact that Palestine does have a history which includes decades of Israeli occupation and terror.”

I believe President Obama did mention this history or occupation and terror directly and passionately in his speech:

“it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people —Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

This example illustrates how ingrained, stereotypical ways of thinking about the “other” are so difficult to dislodge. We hear what we want to hear, and disregard the rest.

I think this was a great idea to capture the reaction of Arab students. However, the NY Times liberal ideology and agenda sours things yet again. Why are there no young male students included among the responses?

I completely understand that young women should be given a voice in the discourse of Arab and Islamic politics… but by not including a single male viewpoint, you have swung the bias in the reverse direction.

Way to go Gray Lady!

LEDE BLOG REPLY: You are making an assumption that is incorrect. We asked for and expected to get impressions from male students too, but at first had some problem getting them sent to us this morning. In the meantime, we thought it better to publish what we did get and add those later if they do arrive.

UPDATE: The comment from Tarek, now added above, is from a male perspective.

Americans are hoping this visit will set forth a new beginning for a dialog of peace. We did not support Bush or his tyrannical existence. We do not support needless wars that create bloodshed and strife. It is my hope that this visit will open doors previously closed towards peaceful dialog and world understanding.
Namaste

It is best that President Obama did not make concrete proposals for solving the region’s problems and conflicts. There is no way that a single speech could do justice to the complexity of the problems. To suggest that the US president can fly in for a few days and fix it all would seem arrogant and would undermine the long-term prospects for progress.

While I deeply appreciate everything that these well educated and thoughtful students are saying, I guess I am a little put off by some of the ‘disappointment’ that was stated.

I just wonder why it seems to be this underlying ideal that our country should come into other countries and fix all their problems, pay for buildings and social programs and this and that.

Where are all the countries coming to fix our problems? While the President of this country flies around to other countries and offers advice, aide and support – where are all the foreign leaders coming to our country and offering the same?

Where are all the countries coming to take care of our homeless? Our sick? Our uneducated? Our poor?

Where are all the countries coming to give jobs to our jobless? While companies here outsource millions of jobs all over the world.. who outsources to the US?

I want to help as a person. I think its a good thing to help. But for all the talk of choice above, the choice is not given to us. We simply pay our taxes, watch our government fall trillions of dollars in debt, and have no choice if we are going to rebuild buildings or help a country with irrigation and so on. Again, its not that I am against helping, I just don’t have a choice.

Its not that I don’t think if we have the means, we should help, its just that we don’t have the means right now. We are in a terrible state here, and yet still trying to support helping other countries, and their citizens say ‘Why are you not helping us more? You should do this and that for us.’ I cannot quite explain why that makes me upset, but the last report especially got under my skin.

Perhaps it is the image that we push all over the world that we are all lounging in big homes driving fancy cars and eating our fill while flaunting our perfectly healthy bodies. We even hide our underside from ourselves.

These bright young people are stuck in their own rather justifiable self-interests and the land propaganda of their parents, but stuck nevertheless. This stubbornness and programmed hatred of the jewish people paralyzes every person on this earth and it is surprising that such bright young people are so willing yet so dogmatic….when people are spoken to by someone speaking the real truth that is action, not just words. speaking and hearing the truth is what they were delivered in terms of an opportunity, something very real and different than anything that has happened from the USA before….

I agree with Daniel. You should have had more males. But it does seem that from the reactions of these very bright young women, as well as from those of other Middle Eastern commentators, the speech definitely accomplished what it was set out to do. It has begun to reshape the dialogue between the U.S. and the Middle East and has cast the U.S. as a well-intentioned, more nuanced, more honest broker in the myriad conflicts that afflict that region. Obama is definitely in the expectations game: first it was expectations for the speech, now it is expectations for the follow-up to the speech, that is, firm and concrete action.

As a moroccan Jew; I have always been denied the other half of my heritage ; and it always made me angry that the first question was “It was dangerous growing up as a jew in Morocco”. And it always ended up with a huge argument about how I did not think it was ; and as a child and a teenager growing up in Morrocco; I had the best of times. It was my country, my home. We were “told to leave” because it was dangerous; therefore I also became a displaced person. But I delighted in learning Classical Arabic, and singing Arabic songs and watching Egyptian movies. I loved reciting a particularly beautiful Arabic poem that our professor taught us (I must say that I was the first Jewish student to want to learn to write and read Arabic).
I always recited this poem to demonstrate to people the beauty of arabic poetry and music.
Recognizing the legacy of Arab culture, music, mathematics, poetry, cinema, food, arts and crafts, architecture recognizes the foundation of who I am as a Morroccan Jew.

In so doing, she puts a young and smiling, yet unsympathetic and intransigent face on the crux of the problem in seeking “understanding” from the Muslims in the middle east. Until they accept Isreal’s (read, “Jews'”)legitimate and supreme right to exist in their ancestral and reborn homeland, there will not be peace.

As for Obama’s mentioning Palestinians’ displacement since Israel’s “founding,” it would be more accurate to say “reestablishment,” lest he and his audience forget there was a State of Isreal before most middles east countries even existed.

“Ever since 9/11 Islam has been portrayed in a very negative light, as the religion of terrorism, and no one had managed to change or at least begin to work on changing that view, until today.” – Ingy Hassieb

Funny. I read the interviews and didn’t notice the lack of gender diversity……I just realized it when reading the replies above. How many times have interviews contained solely male responses? Would these same folks written in to ask why?

But I digress from the issue at hand – Arab reactions to Obama’s speech!

It is refreshing to see Moslem women speaking for a change. And it is interesting to see how concerned a number of male Times readers are that only women are listed thus far. Now they know how women feel 98 per cent of the time!

We seem much more ready to criticize an apparent absence of male voices than female. Young Arab women are rarely asked to voice their political interpretations, and men’s analyses of Obama’s speech populate news coverage in every outlet. I will welcome the chance to read male student’s opinions, as well, when they become available; in the meantime, I appreciate the opportunity to hear from these particular speakers.

What's Next

About

The Lede is a blog that remixes national and international news stories -- adding information gleaned from the Web or gathered through original reporting -- to supplement articles in The New York Times and draw readers in to the global conversation about the news taking place online.

Readers are encouraged to take part in the blogging by using the comments threads to suggest links to relevant material elsewhere on the Web or by submitting eyewitness accounts, photographs or video of news events. Read more.

Six young Iranians were arrested and forced to repent on state television Tuesday for the grievous offense of proclaiming themselves to be “Happy in Tehran,” in a homemade music video they posted on YouTube.Read more…